Metaphysics of God - Religious Language

What is a cognitive statement attempting to do?

Make a factual claim and describe the way the world is.

What is a non-cognitive statement attempting to do?

Convey an attitude or emotional response, not attempting to describe the way the world is.

Do cognitive statements have truth value?

Yes, they can be true or false, they are truth apt

Do non-cognitive statements have truth value?

No, they can't be true or false, they aren't truth apt

How would a cognitivist defend as meaningful arguments about the existence of God and the attributes of God?

1. Sentences are meaningful if they are statements about the world.
2. Expressions of belief about the world can be true or false (they can be verified or falsified).
3. 'God exists' is the claim that there is a God that exists independently in the world, and reasons can be given to support this claim (it can be verified).
4. Therefore 'God exists' is a meaningful claim.

How would a non-cognitivist defend as meaningful arguments about the existence of God and the attributes of God?

1. Sentences are meaningful if they are expressions of mental state (attitude, emotion or a way of interpreting the world).
2. Expressions of these non-cognitive mental states are neither true or false (neither verifiable or falsifiable).
3. 'God exists' or 'God is supremely good' are not claims about the world, but an expression of non-cognitive mental states, the way in which we see the world (Hare's bliks).
4. Therefore 'God exists' and 'God is supremely good' are meaningful claims.

Why can having a non-cognitivist view of religious statements be dangerous?

Religious belief cannot be challenge by facts and 'evidence'. This means that there is nothing that will change people's minds.

What are benefits of seeing religious language as cognitivist?

Clear factual claims that can be examined by anyone. Most believers are cognitivists. Explains religious believer's commitment to their religion because they see their beliefs as factual.

What are benefits of seeing religious language as non-cognitivist?

Avoids view that religious language has to be scientific, so avoids verification and falsification challenges. Reflects the distinctive views and commitments of religious people. It acknowledges that religious language is one of many ways in which language can be meaningful.

What philosophy did Ayer belong to?

Logical positivism.

What do logical positivists argue?

Statements can be considered meaningful based on whether they can be proven true or false. Either analytically or emprically. This is a cognitive approach known as the verification principle. It is only needed to verify in principle - be able to identify the conditions under which verification would be possible.

What would Ayer and logical positivists say about religious statements?

They cannot be proven true or false and therefore are meaningless. 'God exists' is not analytic. 'God exists' is not empirically verifiable.

What are the strengths of the verification principle?

Straightforward demand for verification through sense experience. It is inline with empirical science. It makes a valid demand for realism in what we say about the world.

What are the weaknesses of the verification principle?

Diminishes the whole range of human history, morality, aesthetics, art, music and poetry as meaningless. Some aspects of science deal with unobservable entities so surely the VP should dismiss science as meaningless, which it does not. We could argue that religion offers reasonable hypotheses. Some religious philosophers can argue that religious statements can be verified in principle by empirical statements made by observers at the time. The VP appears to be a metaphysical assumption about the way things are, but Ayer dismisses religious statements as metaphysical assumptions, so his VP is an example of the very thing it was intended to guard against. (VP itself isn't analytically or empirically verifiable).

What is Hick's parable of the Celestial City?

There are two men travelling together along a road. One believes it leads to Celestial City, one believes it leads nowhere. Two different interpretations that are compatible with the evidence. When they turn the last corner one will be wrong and one will be right.

What is Flew's parable of the Invisible Gardener?

Two explorers, one thinks that there is a gardener, one thinks that there is no gardener. They stay and set up things to test if there is a gardener. They keep changing the qualities of the gardener to fit the evidence. "What remains of your original assertion?". "Dies the death of a thousand qualifications".

What is Mitchell's parable of the Partisan?

Partisan meets a stranger, stranger says that he is on their side and that he is in command of it. The stranger urges the Partisan to have faith in him no matter what. The Partisan believes him no matter the evidence. "What would he have to do for you to admit you were wrong". The Partisan refuses to answer and put the stranger to the test.

What is Hare's parable of the lunatic?

Student thinks Dons are trying to kill him, no amount of evidence can convince him otherwise. His belief is unfalsifiable yet still meaningful as it forms part of the foundation framework through which he views and interprets all his experiences as well as affecting the way he lives his life.

What is Hick's parable?

Parable of Celestial City

What is Flew's parable?

Parable of the invisible gardener

What is Mitchell's parable?

Parable of Partisan

What is Hare's parable?

Parable of the lunatic

What three philosophers are part of the university debate?

Flew, Mitchell and Hare

What approach does Ayer take to religious language?

Cognitivist

What approach does Hick take to religious language?

Cognitivist

What approach does Flew take to religious language?

Cognitivist

What approach does Mitchell take to religious language?

Cognitivist

What approach does Hare take to religious language?

Non-cognitivist

What is Ayer's theory?

Verification principle

What is Hick's theory?

Eschatological verification

What is Flew's theory?

The challenge of falsification / falsification principle

What is Hare's theory?

Hare's bliks

Does Ayer think that religious language is meaningful?

No, it can't be verified analytically or empirically

Does Hick think that religious language is meaningful?

Yes, it is verifiable in the Eschaton

Does Flew think that religious language is meaningful?

No, it can't be falsified

Does Mitchell think that religious language is meaningful?

Yes, they allow falsification

Does Hare think that religious language is meaningful?

Yes, the bliks influence how people live their lives and interpret the world.

Does Ayer say that religious language can be verified?

No

Does Hick say that religious language can be verified?

Yes, in the Eschaton

Does Hare think that religious language can be verified?

Irrelevant

Does Flew say that religious language can be falsified?

No

Does Mitchell say that religious language can be falsified?

Yes but no conclusively

Does Hare think that religious language can be falsified?

Irrelevant

How would Ayer say that the claim 'God loves all his children' should be understood?

As a meaningless statement as it can't be verified analytically or empirically

How would Hick say that the claim 'God loves all his children' should be understood?

As a meaningful statement whereby a believer interprets their experiences of the world around them as evidence of an all loving God, a belief which will be verifiable in the eschaton.

How would Flew say that the claim 'God loves all his children' should be understood?

As a meaningless statement as it cant be falsified.

How would Mitchell say that the claim 'God loves all his children' should be understood?

As a meaningful statement as they can be falsified.

How would Hare say that the claim 'God loves all his children' should be understood?

As a meaningful statement as it is a blik that influences how people live their life and interpret the world.

In the Parable of Celestial City, what do each of the travelers represent?

Religious person and non-religious person

In the Parable of Celestial City, what do the city and the road represent?

City - afterlife, road - life

What is the eschaton?

The end of the world

What is Hick's eschatological verification argument?

P1 - Verification means we can describe a situation in which rational doubt is removed
P2 - In principle, after somebody dies they will encounter and recognise God.
C1 - Therefore in principle after someone dies the rational doubt that there is a God will be removed.
C2 - Therefore the claim God exists can be verified in principle by at least one person.

What are the issues with Hick's eschatological verification?

The atheist could dismiss his views as wishful thinking. Strong claim that religious language must be cognitivist - after death the claims will be shown to either be correct or not. Asymmetrical view of verification, if his beliefs turn out to be true they will be verified but if false they cannot be falsified.

Who originally presented the Parable of the Gardener?

Wisdom

What can the Parable of the Gardener also be used as?

Criticism for teleological / design arguments

What is Flew's challenge of falsification argument?

P1 - A meaningful assertion is one that can be falsified, a meaningless assertion cannot be falsified.
P2 - To falsify an assertion means describing what the world would be like if the statement were false.
P3 - Atheists provide many examples of what the world would be like if the claims 'God exists' or 'God loves us' were false, for example pointless suffering in the world.
P4 - Believers refused to accept these examples as falsifying instead they qualify or amend their claims to avoid them being falsified.
P5 - Believers cannot conceive of any examples of what the world would look like if the claims 'God exists' and 'God loves us' were false.
C - Therefore believers' claims that 'God exists' or 'God loves us' are unfalsifiable and meaningless.

What are issues with the falsification principle?

It ignores the fact that life isn't confined to factual understanding (for example humans use art, poetry and literature to interpret life and give it meaning). It can be considered too rigid in its understanding of truth: truth is not restricted to scientific truth, it can include metaphysical truths about the universe, and these cannot be analysed by falsification. It is not true that religious people will allow nothing to change their religious beliefs, they may change their faith on the basis of evidence or even lose their faith.

In the parable of Partisan who do the stranger and Partisan represent?

Stranger - God, Partisan - Believer

What is Mitchell's response to Flew?

P1 - A meaningful assertion is one that can be falsified.
P2 - To falsify an assertion means describing things that count against the assertion.
P3 - Believers who claim that 'God loves us' recognise that the problem of evil/pain/suffering does count against their assertion. (they develop theodicies)
C1 - Therefore, 'God loves us' is a genuine assertion.
P4 - However believers will not discard their belief, even if evidence counts against it.
P5 - This is because of their faith in God, and they will always commit to finding an explanation for the counter evidence. (trying to solve the problem of evil)
C2 - Therefore religious statements like 'God loves us' are genuine assertions but not conclusively falsifiable.

What are the three ways of interpreting religious statements according to Mitchell?

Provisional hypotheses, significant articles of faith, vacuous formulae.

What are provisional hypotheses?

Scientific statements that should be discarded as soon as there is contradictory evidence. How Flew thinks they should be treated.

What are significant articles of faith?

Things that you are committed to and have a big impact on how you live your life. They are not abandoned easily, but that doesn't mean that they are never abandoned. How Mitchell thinks they should be treated.

What are vacuous formulae?

We never abandon them in the face of any evidence. This refers to statements that are excessively qualified.

What is Hare's Bliks argument?

P1 - A blik is a foundational approach / attitude that we have to the world, and our beliefs are based on these.
P2 - A blik cannot be falsified.
P3 - Religious claims like 'God loves us' are expressions of fundamental approaches / attitudes about the world.
P4 - Religious claims like 'God loves us' cannot be falsified.
C - Therefore religious claims are not assertions, they are expressions of a blik.